Criticker.com ForumsFilm Discussions2018-05-17T18:14:04https://www.criticker.com/forum/feed.php?f=102018-05-17T18:14:042018-05-17T18:14:04https://www.criticker.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=7215&p=65173#p65173your rankings. At the bottom of the page you'll find: "batch edit the rankings on this page"

]]>2018-04-30T16:16:312018-04-30T16:16:31https://www.criticker.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=7141&p=65093#p65093Statistics: Posted by mpowell — Mon Apr 30, 2018 4:16 pm
]]>2018-04-28T00:02:232018-04-28T00:02:23https://www.criticker.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=7141&p=65077#p65077This was happening before the percentile system was introduced, so I chalked it up to me overusing those specific genre recommendations; but once the percentile system was introduced and I opted for the transition the recommendations started working again, and I was getting several movies with probable scores of 70 or above; then it reverted to the same problem I was having (no horror and animation recommendations, only a few sci-fi ones and probable scores of 80 or above).

A week ago I even reset all my rankings and re-ranked the movies hoping it would somehow reset the recommendations and generate new ones, but it did not work.

mpowell wrote:Re: What happens to tiers if a user only rates movies he likes?[…]Regardless of the score, the lowest 10% of your ratings will be in Tier 1.*Criticker does work best for those with a wide variety of rankings.

* i.e. bottom 10% percentile

I don't know, but after all maybe it's necessary to take into consideration the user's vote distribution (the curve shape) to some extent, as suggested above by 90sCoffee?

90sCoffee wrote:the solution for me is to change the tier percentages so that they aren't all equal to 10% of your films each.

Tier 1 should be your bottom 4ish% of films,tier 2 should be around 8%,tiers 6 and 7 should be closer to 15ish%,tier 8 should be around 12%,tier 9 should be 7ish%, andtier 10 should be reserved for your top 5% favourite films.

Those are rough numbers but you get the idea, they should represent the parabolic shape that most people have with their ratings. By assigning an equal 10% to ratings like it is now, it assumes that everyone has a flat shaped graph of their rating distribution which most don't.

I agree that it would be worthwhile to at least think about what role the graph shape plays and what implications it has for comparing 2 users with different graph shapes to each other (which is the whole point of criticker).

I don't think that assigning fixed (Bell curve induced) values to the tiers (as 90sCoffee suggests), because what happens then to to users with a flat shaped graph (or, generally speaking, anything other than a Bell curve) ?

Also, the Bell curve suggestion above would only mitigate 1 aspect of non-linear graphs, but it doesn't deal at all with the problem highlighted by the OP, namely users who "only rate [their] most favourite movies and only give out scores like 80 and above", regardless of whether these scores from 80-100 have a flat or Bell curved graph.

]]>2018-04-19T19:31:412018-04-19T19:31:41https://www.criticker.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=6840&p=65004#p65004related thread because the user makes a good point:

philamental wrote:If you decided to rank 100 movies, and it just so happens they are your 100 favourite movies of all time, and they vary in score of 90 to 100, then the movies you ranked the lowest will be your Tier 1 films, red with whatever negative sounding default quip goes along with it. The tier system basically aims to 'separate' the films you've rated and judges them against each other. If 90 out of 100 is the lowest score you have ranked on this site, then that movie will be deemed the worst movie you have ever seen ... because it doesn't know about any other movies you've seen.In short, you need to rate bad movies too for criticker to understand what movies you see as being good.